Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Mad) 714

R.JAYASIMHA BABU, N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
A. Stephen Samuel & Another – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Others – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.B. Rajendran, Mr.M.S. Krishnan, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 Mr.R. Santhanam, R3 Mr.M. Balachandar, R4 Mr.Sundaravadivel, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appellants are tenants of properties secured by Canara Bank and affected by a recovery certificate and sale; they challenge eviction orders. (!) - The Recovery Officer issued orders for vacant possession citing ITCP Rules 39 and 40; the court analyzes whether tenants can be evicted or must receive symbolic possession. (!) (!) (!) - The Rules under ITCP Rules closely resemble Order 21 CPC provisions regarding delivery of possession; tenants cannot be ousted contrary to rent control rights. (!) - It is held that tenants are lawful tenants prior to attachment; the Recovery Officer cannot evict them by directing actual possession; possession should be symbolic under Rule 40. (!) - The Recovery Officer’s failure to follow Rules 41-45 ITCP Rules and improper application of Rules 39 and 40 affects legality of the order; order quashed. (!) (!) - The appellate remedy under the Recovery of Debts Act is available, but the judicial decision emphasizes proper procedure and jurisdiction limits of the Recovery Officer. (!) (!) - The Delhi and other High Court authorities referenced support symbolical possession for tenants when property is sold; actual eviction requires compliance with rent control laws. (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether tenants occupying property under a defaulter can be dispossessed or evicted by a Recovery Officer under the ITCP Rules when the property is sold in execution of a certificate?

Question 2?

What is the proper scope of possession delivery for properties in occupancy of tenants under ITCP Rules vs. Order 21 CPC, and whether such possession is symbolic or actual?

Question 3?

What is the appropriate remedy or forum for tenants to challenge eviction orders issued under the Recovery of Debts Act and associated ITCP Rules?

Judgment :-

N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

These two Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19700/2000 and 20725/2000 dated 23.7.2001.

2. The appellants are the tenants of the properties covered in the notice issued by the second respondent. According to the appellants, the properties were let out to them by one P.V.Paulson Ukkuru and the said P.V.Paulson Ukkuru is the sole proprietor of M/s.Josephaul Steels to which the third respondent, namely, Canara Bank, Chennai had extended certain credit facilities which were collaterally secured by the deposit of title deeds. Since P.V.Paulson Ukkuru did not repay the loan borrowed by him, the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount and on the formation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the said suit was transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and it is stated that an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal directing the said Paulson Ukkuru to repay the same. Since he failed to repay the amount as ordered, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has directed the issuance of recovery certificate. It is stated that in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document